Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Chauncey v. State

Chauncey v. State

199 S.E.2d 391, 129 Ga. App. 207, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 943
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 14, 1973
Docket48007
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 199 S.E.2d 391 (Chauncey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chauncey v. State, 199 S.E.2d 391, 129 Ga. App. 207, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 943 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

The defendant was brought to trial on an accusation for the abandonment of his illegitimate child. The accusation alleging that he abandoned the child in Lanier County, Georgia, on August 20, 1972. The accusation further recited that it was based on the affidavit of Vickie Bailey, the prosecutrix, made August 20, 1972, before John W. Harrell, justice of the peace in and for said county. There was no such affidavit attached to or accompanying the accusation.

Upon the call of the case for trial, defendant before pleading to the accusation, through his attorney demanded that the affidavit be produced and objected to proceeding until same was produced. *208 The court overruled defendant’s demand and objections; whereupon, the defendant plead not guilty and proceeded to trial. The defendant was found guilty and an appeal was filed. Held:

Submitted April 2, 1973 Decided June 14, 1973. Jack J. Helms, for appellant. Vickers Neugent, District Attorney, for appellee.

1. Enumeration of error number three contends the court erred in charging the jury: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt for which you can give a reason and means just what it says. It is the doubt of a fair minded, impartial juror honestly seeking the truth, not an arbitrary or capricious doubt or a doubt arising from the consideration of the evidence or from a lack of evidence or from a conflict of evidence. ” (Emphasis supplied.) Under that which was held in Hunsinger v. State, 225 Ga. 426, 429 (169 SE2d 286), the defendant’s contention is correct.

2. The defendant objected because the affidavit upon which the accusation was based was not produced. A valid affidavit is essential to support an accusation and without such an affidavit the whole trial is a nullity. Scroggins v. State, 55 Ga. 380 (3); Gilbert v. State, 17 Ga. App. 143 (4) (86 SE 415). Therefore, upon the retrial of this case if no valid affidavit is found to exist any conviction would be void.

3. The remaining enumerations of error are without merit.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lamar v. State
255 S.E.2d 51 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1979)
Young v. State
245 S.E.2d 866 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Williamson v. State
235 S.E.2d 643 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Gilreath v. State
230 S.E.2d 362 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Smith v. State
231 S.E.2d 91 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Martin v. State
228 S.E.2d 15 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Willoughby v. State
225 S.E.2d 65 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Wade v. State
212 S.E.2d 466 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Marshall v. State
200 S.E.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 S.E.2d 391, 129 Ga. App. 207, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chauncey-v-state-gactapp-1973.